Why is the fact which I said repeatedly that there were individual women who could be responsible for wars just totally ignored in my posts. I really don't want to resort to shouting but I do wish people would read what I wrote instead of responding to what they imagine I wrote.
It could be but that would be on the bottom of my list of possible explanations.
I would love to see where you got sufficient data from with regards to female political and military leaders to make such a judgement.
women in general, or women in positions of political power?
Come now, apart from the Falklands, and a de facto civil war with the NUM, what wars did Thatcher ever start?
Could it be that "women don't start wars", because a statically insignificant number of women have ever been in a position powerful enough to start wars?
I started another thread specifically to discuss the violence/gender issues. If there is something that relates to bias against women and gender/violence issues I see no reason it shouldn't be in this thread as well.I see no reason why the discussion could not remain in this thread, as the conversation has turned to "poor Hillary not winning because americans are misogynistic".
Personally, I would not argue with you that men are more physically violent then women.
I would though, and my wife and many of her female friends would back me up, say that women can tend to be more vindictive, and more vengeful then men.
Of course that is opinion and anecdotal evidence, and I have not the want or time to do the research on it. Then again, I am not asking you to do so with respect to your comment either.
TAM
Like I said, re the gender violence issues you can go to the other thread and address the evidence. Re your logic here, it doesn't follow. I said women as a group (not talking about individuals) were less likely to seek to resolve conflict with violence. That is a separate question than how vigorously one defends against violence perpetrated against you. The evidence in biology is that females can be incredibly fierce defending their young.oh, and incidentally, the argument can be made both ways.
Yes, perhaps a woman as president would make her think twice about the need for war to solve a problem.
On the otherhand, being a woman (by your standard of less violent) MIGHT make her hesitate too much, when such an action is needed.
There IS A TIME FOR WAR.
TAM
Bull!
Hok, I didn't mean to sound harsh but you brought up the example of Thatcher, an individual when I said my comments on Clinton being less inclined to war was based solely on the fact she is a woman, not on something specific but you need the context of that to understand what I mean.
This is one individual, Elton John's claim is that people who don't support Clinton are de facto mysogyns. That's the topic of the thread, you're trying to change it.
I don't give a * about that individual.
